Analysis Inexperience watch

[Ironmonger]

Port are the third youngest list in the comp behind the two new boys - sobering

'
They're a young team, but that stat is a bit deceptive. They have a low mean age because they only have two players in their entire squad 29 or over (Cassisi and Cornes), while we have seven.

I reckon a better measure of the average age of a list is the mid-point, or median age. Ours is 22.7 (frighteningly low), while theirs is 23.04, quite a bit higher.

 

[Skoob]

I think goal-kicking medium forward is a more urgent unfilled vacancy than tall defender.

Agreed. Maguire has ready-made replacements in Clarke, Lisle and Gardiner, without mentioning Bourke and McStay. We don't have ready-made goal kicking marking forwards, just question marks.

Mayes?

 

[dlanod]

Mayes?

I still see (hope for) him more as a midfielder, though he is playing well up forward at the moment.

 

[Skoob]

I still see (hope for) him more as a midfielder, though he is playing well up forward at the moment.

Yeah, I can see him able to rotate through both, but in the short to medium term it seems we have the midfield covered whereas the forward line is screaming out in desperation. I think with his performance so far, he'll cement his spot there. That's not to say I can't see room for Ash, in fact I think we need him. My 'concern' is whether the coach is thinking the same way. Only time will tell whether the 'out with the old' thing is a real or perceived policy or experiment. Once Ash is well enough to play, he'll be required to put some time in with the seconds I would think. Who knows how long it'll be by the time he is fit and performing well enough for a senior gig. Perhaps only a farewell game left for him to play.

 

[dlanod]

McGrath will be a good litmus test, assuming he does play well enough to get recalled (I'm assuming he'd have at least one game in the reserves for fitness reasons). Brown has enough runs on the board and cachet that dropping him will result in outrage. Maguire has younger players arguably at the same level as him. McGrath splits the spectrum.

 

[western royboy]

'
They're a young team, but that stat is a bit deceptive. They have a low mean age because they only have two players in their entire squad 29 or over (Cassisi and Cornes), while we have seven.

I reckon a better measure of the average age of a list is the mid-point, or median age. Ours is 22.7 (frighteningly low), while theirs is 23.04, quite a bit higher.

They are a young team potentially being mentioned as a top 4 side that has a median age of less than 6 months greater than ours - is it not sobering to compare them vs us given 18 months they were in a bigger hole than we were/are?

it's both depressing and exciting to see how their ship was turned so quickly while looking at our own club.

 

[Ironmonger]

McGrath will be a good litmus test, assuming he does play well enough to get recalled (I'm assuming he'd have at least one game in the reserves for fitness reasons). Brown has enough runs on the board and cachet that dropping him will result in outrage. Maguire has younger players arguably at the same level as him. McGrath splits the spectrum.

I actually think Polkinghorne is the litmus test. We bag him out on this forum but he is okay. He's hardly a dominant presence but he runs hard and provides defensive pressure, and he can do the odd useful thing in attack. He just has very limited upside.

Right now it seems like there's a doubt about his fitness, but if he's cherry ripe in two weeks and we're still playing raw youngsters ahead of him, then to me it's another sign that potential is being rewarded over stability.

They are a young team potentially being mentioned as a top 4 side that has a median age of less than 6 months greater than ours - is it not sobering to compare them vs us given 18 months they were in a bigger hole than we were/are?
it's both depressing and exciting to see how their ship was turned so quickly while looking at our own club.

Agreed.

Wasn't disagreeing necessarily, just providing some context.

 

[chopperduck]

The only problem we are going to have is that over the next few years is making sure our drafting is spot on, we will co ti ue to have our more experienced players going out the door, and replacing them wont be easy. I really hope the group of 4 from this year, Aish, Taylor, Robbo and Cutler can establish themselves in the team. It will really help our midfield depth in 3 years time if those 4 are best 22.

I have a similar hope for our defender stocks in Clarke, McStay and Gardiner. If only we can snaffle some forwards. The 13 draft has the potential to set us up for the next 10 years if those players come through for us.

 

[jjami15]

The only problem we are going to have is that over the next few years is making sure our drafting is spot on, we will co ti ue to have our more experienced players going out the door, and replacing them wont be easy. I really hope the group of 4 from this year, Aish, Taylor, Robbo and Cutler can establish themselves in the team. It will really help our midfield depth in 3 years time if those 4 are best 22.

I have a similar hope for our defender stocks in Clarke, McStay and Gardiner. If only we can snaffle some forwards. The 13 draft has the potential to set us up for the next 10 years if those players come through for us.

Me thinks it might be time for 2014 draft thread! Is there anyone out there brave enough to roll the dice?

 

[BigCat2]

Me thinks it might be time for 2014 draft thread! Is there anyone out there brave enough to roll the dice?

There is already one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chopperduck]

Lester out is the only change out of the 5 that is going younger unforced, so even if we didnt make that change, its only 1 player. It wouldnt have a massive impact on the overall youth and make up of the team. And again, we dont know why Lester has been dropped.

 

[jjami15]

There is already one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And so there is, I've even posted on it, damn sleep deprivation

 

[dlanod]

I actually think Polkinghorne is the litmus test. We bag him out on this forum but he is okay. He's hardly a dominant presence but he runs hard and provides defensive pressure, and he can do the odd useful thing in attack. He just has very limited upside.

Right now it seems like there's a doubt about his fitness, but if he's cherry ripe in two weeks and we're still playing raw youngsters ahead of him, then to me it's another sign that potential is being rewarded over stability.

I'd disagree with Polkinghorne. He doesn't really provide anything that can't be provided by another inclusion, so seems like a perfect candidate for being replaced by a youngster. He's got a bit bigger body, that's about it. At least Raines has elite stopping skills and Bewick is a danger up front sporadically.

 

[Ironmonger]

I'd disagree with Polkinghorne. He doesn't really provide anything that can't be provided by another inclusion, so seems like a perfect candidate for being replaced by a youngster. He's got a bit bigger body, that's about it. At least Raines has elite stopping skills and Bewick is a danger up front sporadically.

It's his ordinariness that makes him a good test case, in my opinion. If Raines misses, it could be because Leppa doesn't want to play a tagger. If Bewick misses, it could be because Leppa doesn't think we can cover his lack of defensive ability.

But if Polkinghorne misses in favour of a kid, it's probably not a strategic decision.

 

[dlanod]

It's his ordinariness that makes him a good test case, in my opinion. If Raines misses, it could be because Leppa doesn't want to play a tagger. If Bewick misses, it could be because Leppa doesn't think we can cover his lack of defensive ability.

But if Polkinghorne misses in favour of a kid, it's probably not a strategic decision.

That's why I think McGrath is a better option - he's got runs on the board as a better option than the kids at this point. Polkinghorne doesn't. If all other things are equal, most AFL coaches play the younger player anyway because they don't know as much about them and need to find that out - can they play at AFL level, etc?

 

[ZoBlitz]

I think I worked out that port's selected side had 600 or so more games of experience than our side.

 

[winged1]

I don't think so many kids would be getting played if the injury list wasn't full of experienced players.

 

[GumbyRules]

Where is the list for this week... Getting slack guys...

 

[Last of the Roys]

OK, maybe this should be the real Doom Watch thread. Time for Round 5 Lions vs. Richmond:

• (0 to 10 games - Lions 7 vs. Tigers 3)
• 0 to 24 games - Lions 10 vs. Tigers 5
• 25 to 49 games - Lions 4 vs. Tigers 4
• 50 to 99 games - Lions 2 vs. Tigers 6
• 100 to 199 games - Lions 5 vs. Tigers 6
• 200+ games - Lions 1 vs. Tigers 1

So we are heading into tomorrow nights match as the most inexperienced Lions side (10 players with less than 25 games experience) since I started this thread at the beginning of the 2012 season. We also have a staggering 7 players with less than 10 games experience. As for the less than 50 game mark it is 14 for the Lions vs. 9 for the Tigers.

Richmond seem only slightly more experienced than Port last week (which is again a bit lucky - it could easily be a lot worse if you look at some of our games against Richmond in the last two years).

A win under these circumstances would be absolutely fantastic. It is not out of the question - twice in the last two years we have overcome serious inexperience deficits at home and won. While one of those wins was over Melbourne, the other was truly a great win when a Lions side with 8 very inexperienced players beat a West Coast side with just 3 very inexperienced players back in 2012.

However it is only a slight hope. The most likely scenario is that we will get thumped, although I would like to see us stay competitive for at least the first half.

 

[Last of the Roys]

It's that time of the week - Anzac Day in NZ - Round 6 Lions vs. Saints:

• (0 to 10 games - Lions 5 vs. Saints 3)
• 0 to 24 games - Lions 8 vs. Saints 8
• 25 to 49 games - Lions 3 vs. Saints 4
• 50 to 99 games - Lions 4 vs. Saints 3
• 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Saints 4
• 200+ games - Lions 1 vs. Saints 3

So we are equal on the number of players with less than 25 games experience and actually have 1 fewer players with less than 50 games experience (Lions 11 vs. Saints 12). However, overall the Saints are still the more experienced side in my book given we have 5 players in single digits to 3, and at the other end of the table the Saints have two extra veterans (Hayes, Montagna and Riewoldt vs. just Brown).

Still, there is not that much between the two sides. I still think we are carrying one too many young players (8 is still a hell of a lot even if both sides are going with that number), but there is no doubting that we should be a definite chance of winning this week. The key thing holding us back will be that the Saints are undoubtedly playing much better football than us - so it will have to be a big turnaround. I give us a 1 in 3 chance.

 

[Last of the Roys]

Look away now if you find our inexperience levels scary - Round 7 Lions vs. Swans at the Gabba

• (0 to 10 games - Lions 4 vs. Swans 2)
• 0 to 24 games - Lions 8 vs. Swans 4
• 25 to 49 games - Lions 4 vs. Swans 2
• 50 to 99 games - Lions 4 vs. Swans 4
• 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Swans 9
• 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Swans 3

The difference is pretty stark this week with the Lions having 12 players with less than 50 games experience to just 6 for the Swans. At the other end of the table Sydney have a staggering 12 players with more than 100 games experience to our 6.

Interesting to note that Sam Mayes will play his 25th game, so next week he will come out of the 0 to 24 games experience category (Justin Clarke is the next one on the horizon - he is playing his 21st game, while Lisle is stuck on 22 at the moment). Also Bewick is playing his 51st game, so he has only recently just made it to the 50 to 99 game level.

 

[John]

Oh boy! Based on that

 

[chopperduck]

100-200 gamers is where the key is. That should be where most players enter and play in their prime. 200+ are the veterans, 1-50 the new first and 2nd year players with 50-100 your up and coming 3rd, 4th, 5th year players. Swans are very well balanced, with a big group of their team battle hardened and experienced, supported by a few good young players, and some very talented veterans.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Well that went as expected

 

[Tairy Greene]

Look away now if you find our inexperience levels scary - Round 7 Lions vs. Swans at the Gabba.

I'm on my phone so can't get decent numbers on this, but what is the break down on the comparative midfield numbers? I'd say we had more/just as many <100 gamers than they had >100 gamers in the midfield.